United States v. Campbell

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DENNIS CAMPBELLUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.TIMOTHY G. HUBLERUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.ROMEO P. CRUZ

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

Before the court are Defendants' objections to the Government's loss calculations in these separately filed yet factually related cases. On June 22, 2010, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the amount of the loss attributable to the Defendants' conduct. For the reasons that follow, the court will overrule Defendants' objections.

I. Background

At all relevant times, Defendant Dennis F. Campbell was employed as a vice-president of Schuylkill Products, Inc., ("SPI"), which until the time it was sold in April 2009, was a business based in Cressona, Pennsylvania, that manufactured prestressed concrete bridge beams for use on highway construction projects.

At all relevant times, Defendant Timothy G. Hubler was employed as a vice-president of CDS Engineers, Inc., ("CDS"), which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of SPI operating out of the SPI facility, and functioned as the engineering and erection division of SPI, installing SPI beams, as well as non-SPI products at various job sites inside and outside of Pennsylvania.

At all relevant times, Defendant Romeo P. Cruz was the owner and president of Marikina Construction Corporation and Marikina Engineers and Construction Corporation (collectively "Marikina"), which was a small Connecticut-based certified disadvantaged business enterprise ("DBE").

A DBE is a for-profit small business that is at least 51% owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and whose management and daily business operations are controlled by at least one of those individuals. See 49 C.F.R. § 26.5. Pursuant to regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania has set annual goals for participation by DBEs in highway construction projects throughout the state. Thus, when bidding for state highway construction projects involving federal funds, a general contractor must ensure that the subcontracts awarded in connection with such projects meet the DBE participation goal for that project. Any DBE awarded a contract must perform a commercially useful function-that is, the DBE must perform, manage, and supervise the subcontract work and must order and pay for the materials used. See 49 C.F.R. § 26.55(c)(1).

Each Defendant entered a guilty plea to an information charging one count of conspiracy to defraud and commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Additionally, Defendants Cruz and Hubler entered guilty pleas for one count of filing a false income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).*fn1

Specifically, each Defendant admitted to knowingly and willfully participating in a scheme to defraud the U.S. Department of Transportation ("USDOT"), the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA"), and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT"), and various general contractors by using Marikina as a pass-through DBE that would be listed as performing subcontract work on various projects when in reality the work was done in whole or in substantial part by SPI and/or CDS employees.

The fraud in question spanned a period of fifteen years from 1993 through 2008. During this time, Marikina received 336 subcontracts worth approximately $119.4 million, making it PennDOT's largest recipient of DBE-designated funds. These subcontracts were awarded to Marikina by general contractors who PennDOT had awarded the prime contract to perform federally funded highway construction work in Pennsylvania, and they generally called for Marikina to "furnish and install" bridge beams. Most of these bridge beams were manufactured by SPI, but some required Marikina to install non-SPI products.

Applicable federal regulations allowed general contractors to count the entire DBE contract amount, including the costs of supplies and materials obtained by the DBE even if the suppliers of the materials were non-DBE entities, toward the general contractor's DBE goal. See 49 C.F.R. § 26.55(a)(1). Thus, despite the fact that for any given contract the cost of materials may make up the majority of the contract amount, the entire contract amount could be credited towards the general contractor's DBE goal if the DBE performed a commercially useful function.

Here, Defendants admitted at their guilty pleas that Marikina did not perform a commercially useful function in connection with any of the PennDOT DBE subcontract. In reality, the subcontracts were actually found, negotiated, coordinated, performed, managed, and supervised by SPI and CDS personnel, including Campbell and Hubler. Furthermore, upon receiving payment from the general contractor, Marikina remitted all of the funds to SPI if an SPI beam was used. If a non-SPI beam was used, Marikina paid the third-party for the beam and then remitted the balance of the funds to SPI. SPI would then kick-back a fixed amount to Marikina. Thus, with every contract which listed Marikina as the DBE, all of the work and all of the money (except some of the materials and the Marikina fixed fee) would go to SPI and/or CDS. This scheme resulted in money that the Government intended to go to legitimate DBEs performing commercially useful functions, instead being funneled through Marikina directly to non-DBEs.

II. Discussion

In Defendants' respective Presentence Investigation Reports, the Government calculated the amount of loss attributable to the conspiracy to defraud and commit mail fraud to be $121 million,*fn2 which, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(N), resulted in a 26-level increase to the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.